Stop The ACLU Blogburst

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Arrogance and Ignorance at Columbia University

Amazing what is being taught in todays Universities.

While I will not cast aspersion on all universities, I will narrow the focus to Columbia University and it's students who stormed the stage a speaker was speaking on, shouted him down, and turned riotous while proclaiming "Free Speech". Do you find anything ironic in this last part, that they took away the right of another to speak, and claimed it was free-speech on their part to do so?

I decided to go to the University website and do a little searching of my own, and came across the Columbia Daily Spectator:

The Columbia Daily Spectator is the daily newspaper of Columbia University and Morningside Heights. We are the second-oldest college daily paper in the country and have been financially independent from the University since 1962. The newspaper is published five days a week during the academic year and weekly during the summer. With a circulation of 10,000, it is delivered to over 150 locations throughout Morningside Heights every day.

The Columbia Daily Spectator is written and edited by Columbia University undergraduates. We serve the communities of Columbia University and Morningside Heights as a forum for the expression of diverse viewpoints, a top source for in-depth and comprehensive news and features, and a rewarding extracurricular opportunity for our staff. Spectator is the primary source of campus and local news for more than 90 percent of our readership. For busy students, Spectator is the only consistent source of local news, and for the community at large, it is the only source for information about University events and services. Serving a community of over 60,000 students, faculty, administrators, and Morningside Heights residents, the Columbia Daily Spectator is the most widely-read newspaper in Morningside Heights and Harlem.

Starting last week, several campus groups began mobilizing to protest three members of the Minutemen, a vigilante group that patrols the U.S.-Mexico border for illegal immigrants, who will be speaking in Roone Arledge Auditorium Wednesday night. The three members, Jim Gilchrist, Marvin Stuart, and Jerome Corsi, were invited by the Columbia College Republicans.

"It [my reaction] was shock at first," Chicano Caucus political chair Karina Garcia, CC '08, said. "To bring a man who has blood on his hands, almost. ... This is an organization that has been the cause of multiple hate crimes. They are terrorizing these communities."

Last week, the College Republicans invited the Chicano Caucus and several other groups to co-sponsor the event.

"They never wanted us to co-sponsor-what it was, really, was a slap in the face. That's how I took it," Garcia said.

Chris Kulawik, CC '08 and president of the College Republicans, said he extended the opportunity to any group who may have had interest in the topic.

"The moment I heard that Jim Gilchrist was coming, I thought it was a matter of conscience ... to express my outrage that this racist right-wing vigilante group would be given the podium as if it was a legitimate voice," said Ben Becker, CC '05 and a member of the ANSWER coalition.

...

But opponents don't see the Minutemen as the "community activists" that Kulawik describes. For many members of the Chicano Caucus and other protestors, illegal immigration and the actions of the Minutemen are personal issues.

"Illegal immigration is one thing, but what they're doing to human beings is something else," Yadira Alvarez, CC '10, said. "I'm Mexican, and it's not that I support illegal immigration, but America is a nation of immigrants. There is no way that someone can go against that."

Garcia said that many student groups have already agreed to co-sponsor the protest, including the Black Students Organization, Students for Environmental and Economic Justice, the Columbia College Democrats, Turath, and Students Promoting Education and Knowledge.

First of all, I love the quote "To bring a man who has blood on his hands, almost. ... This is an organization that has been the cause of multiple hate crimes.", by the Chicano Caucus Political Chair. ALMOST. That doesn't mean he DOES, it means he doesn't, and using ALMOST just slants things more toward your point of view. I almost won the lottery last night....which means, I didn't win.

It sounds like the Republican group sent out invitations to multiple groups to learn more on the issue, inviting them to listen to what the man had to say. Instead as the Chicano Caucus political chair said, she took it as a slap in the face instead, not even bothering with possibly thinking there could be other points of view or other possibilities why they were invited.

Protestors took the stage less than five minutes after Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, took the microphone in Roone Arledge Wednesday night, sparking a chaotic brawl involving more than 30 students, other attendees, and guests of the College Republicans.

Two members of the International Socialist Organization came on stage with a yellow banner reading, "There are no illegals," a signal to others to rush the stage. Gilchrist supporters clamored on stage, fighting with the protestors while Gilchrist and the other speakers were ushered out of the auditorium.

"We were aware that there was going to be a sign and we were going to occupy the stage," said a protestor who was on stage and asked to remain anonymous. "I don't feel the need to apologize or anything. We realize there are consequences for our actions."

Columbia security officers and presidential delegates, University employees who regulate events, broke up the brawl and closed the curtains, forcing everyone to leave the auditorium and eventually the building.

University spokesman Robert Hornsby, who was present at the event, said the presidential delegates would decide the disciplinary procedures for those involved. Participating students would be dealt with under Dean's Discipline, he said, but the response for those involved from outside Columbia was still undetermined.

Ok, first thing, if there was outside supporters of Gilchrist, or College Republicans involved in the fighting, they should be punished. I will state that here and now, because all you do is help incite violence more if you participate in escalating the protestors riotous behaviour they came ready to behave with.

Yes, they came ready to behave in this behaviour, and they state it directly with, "We were aware that there was going to be a sign and we were going to occupy the stage," and "I don't feel the need to apologize or anything. We realize there are consequences for our actions."

They knowingly planned this ahead of time, this was not a spur of the moment "reaction" to Gilchrist's speaking, something in which they wouldn't allow in the first place, claiming their right to "freedom of speech" and yet denying Gilchrist the same right they claim for themselves. Not bothering to even listen to what he has to say, they react by rushing and taking over the stage without bothering to hear a differing point of view.

"The specific facts surrounding the incident are under active investigation by the University, so it is premature to make any official statement regarding facts that are yet to be determined," Hornsby told Spectator last night. There were dozens of video and digital cameras in the room, and much of this footage belongs to Columbia groups, but Hornsby would not say whether this footage would factor into the investigation.

The brawl was the culmination of audience dissent which grew louder and more aggressive.

Marvin Stewart, an ordained minister and member of the Minutemen board of directors, was the first speaker. Audience members shouted interjections throughout his address, calling Stewart, who is black, a hypocrite for supporting the Minutemen. Stewart responded by becoming louder and telling the audience that they did not know anything about government.

During a long pause, one audience member shouted, "In Spanish please!" which brought on an enormous wave of stomping feet and applause from the audience. Stewart countered that "one of the requirements of citizenship is that you speak English," before he was completely drowned out by the noise of the audience. Many attendees stood up and turned their backs on the speaker in protest and began chanting "wrap it up."

Eventually Gilchrist and Chris Kulawik, CC '08, president of the College Republicans and a Spectator columnist, called Stewart off the stage. "I clearly had the false assumption that I was at an Ivy League school," Kulawik said as he introduced the main speaker.

"Who's a racist now?" said Gilchrist, putting an arm around Stewart."I love the first amendment!" he shouted. "You're doing a great job, kids. I'm going to have more fun with this than with my prepared speech."

But before he could get much farther, two students stepped on stage with a banner. Student protestors said that the demonstration was meant to be peaceful, but when students with the Republicans and other Gilchrist supporters came on stage, the confrontation turned violent. One student was kicked in the head and bleeding, students reported.

The protestors occupying the stage included members of the ISO, the Chicano Caucus-which organized a protest beforehand on the Broadway sidewalk outside Lerner Hall-and some unaffiliated with either group. Neither student group officially sanctioned rushing the stage.

"We don't condone the actions of members on either side. Either people on stage who were holding up signs, or people who felt that their speaker was being threatened by people holding signs," said Adhemir Romero, CC '07 and president of the Chicano Caucus.

Romero released a statement late Wednesdy from the executive board of the Caucus. "We feel that it is important to discuss and bring to light important issues concerning immigration, though they should be done in a peaceful manner," it said. "While we do not agree with Mr. Gilchrist and his organization's views, we respect everyone's right to freedom of speech and regret that his opinion was not heard."

"I think this demonstrated the immaturity of the protestors," Kulawik said afterwards. "It came to physical violence and rushing the stage, which is never appropriate."

It is interesting that Columbia University had a multitude of video and digital cameras covering the event, and the invident, but they can't say whether the footage would be used in investigation?!?!

Why the hell not?

You have proof in your very hands of the who, what, when and where...and you don't know if you will use it?!?!

The most assinine comment I have heard in this whole mess is from the ignorant speaker who called out, "In Spanish please!", which would irk even myself, because as Gilchrist came back with, "one of the requirements of citizenship is that you speak English", I find his remark right on the mark. Do you enroll in a Unversity in America, and not speak english and demand of the speakers, the University staff, and students that they must speak in your language?

In Spanish please, indeed. [rolls eyes]

I find it completely rediculous that the Caucus comes out with a statement of "peace" and that the rushing fo the stage was not planned, and yet in the previous article their own members stated that it was planned to rush the stage and they understand the consequences of their actions!

"We were aware that there was going to be a sign and we were going to occupy the stage," said a protestor who was on stage and asked to remain anonymous. "I don't feel the need to apologize or anything. We realize there are consequences for our actions."

One thing that should not have happened is this turning violent. I understand if they wanted to turn their backs on him, or even walk out, but to rush the stage, and to have the protest turn violent is criminal. It does state that a student was kicked in the head, but does not state if it was a protestor or supporter. Regardless of which it should never have happened.

We cannot know for certain who started what, but looking at some of the video footage you can definately see a stark contrast on who is acting what way...

To sum up, I think the protestors wanted it to escalate, because as Ben Becker, a member of ANSWER states:

"The moment I heard that Jim Gilchrist was coming, I thought it was a matter of conscience ... to express my outrage.

That you did Ben, good going showing that tolerance, diversity of thought and Freedom of Speech, will never get in the way of expressing your outrage.

On a few hours' notice, the Columbia community had moved to act-in less than 24 hours, Iranian "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was scheduled to stand in Low Rotunda as an invited guest of the administration. Well accustomed to Columbia's antics, my response has become second nature. That very night, with hopes of an early confirmation, I submitted a protest/space request on behalf of the College Republicans.

Early the following afternoon, I discovered that our advisors in SGB, the Student Governing Board for all groups religious and political, had declined our protest request. The standard cut-and-paste denial reads: "We are unable to approve this space request because it was submitted without sufficient notice. This event requires an Event Review." This was established policy embodied, a policy built on a logical premise. Certain events require advanced notice to allow for cooperation and discussion between the students and the wonderful folks of the lower administration (from advisors to security) who dedicate themselves to bringing these events to fruition.

There is, of course, an inherent problem when Columbia applies cookie-cutter administrative policy universally. With literally one day's notice from the administration, what right do they have to punish student groups for their "late" requests and applications? So long as the administration can abuse such loopholes, they, by their own accepted standards, can invite any speaker and avoid on-campus protest. Campus groups can't skirt controversy as well as their administration. Worse, even for authorized events, student groups must incur the costs associated for heightened security should they wish to brave controversy and protests. Groups on both the political left and right have found this a hard institutional truth to cope with. In all future revisions to Columbia's administrative policy, common sense must prevail: Columbia must distinguish between their usual regulations and the spirit of free and open speech they purport to champion. Regrettably, we must question this commitment to open discussion.

.....

Anyone familiar with Columbia's record, however, would realize that this was not my first denied protest. Nearly a year ago to the day, former columnist Dennis Schmelzer covered an attempt by my Columbia College Conservatives to protest University Invitee Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan strongman. In his deliciously pun riddled article, "How Far Can You Go Against Hugo?" not only does Dennis affirm Columbia's affinity for legitimizing tyrannical despots, he cites clear similarities in administration stonewalling of protests:

"...to get permission to demonstrate at the Sundial for a 'level 3' event [review] on campus, a student group must reserve the space a week ahead of time". Conveniently, for the Chavez event, notice was only posted on the World Leaders Forum Web site on Sept. 13, more than a week after most other speakers were listed and just three days before the event. So much for the week-long notice for the protest."

Sound familiar? It should.

Every effort taken by the administration to promulgate such exceptionalism to shelter the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad is a violation of both student rights and Columbia's long established ideals. Had fate (and a bumbling bureaucracy) not intervened and both tyrants spoken as honored University Guests, what then? Would CU security have followed orders to remove and punish students who participated in those "unauthorized" protests? The simple realization that the University could justify such censorship is truly frightening. More important, why have these flawed policies gone so long unchallenged? Had the University invited President Bush (laughable indeed) and given "one day's notice" as grounds for denied protests, the outcry would be unprecedented.

Friday, September 29, 2006

When Squirrels Attack

First thought when I read the title "Squirrels Go On the Attack in California", was that the squirrels were attacking Liberals - for the Nuts that they are. Even squirrels recognize nuts when they see them and there is quite a few nuts in California, so it was a natural assumption.....

All kidding aside, it really is not that funny when you consider that humans encroach on wildlife habitats, we build and expand, and those animals that stay within our cities to try and survive, become somewhat domesticated. I say "somewhat" because they are still wild animals, with instincts that are born to their nature, but for some of them, like squirrels, have gotten used to humans being close to them, and putting out food for them. We tend to forget these things as we think of them like pets.

Now, when humans stop giving them food, close up places and lock them down so these animals cannot get to what they normally got for food, their instincts take over and they again become the wild animals they are, and hunt for food. They will take it from babies, or unsuspecting humans, grab and run. They are quick and use that to their advantage.

Now that some people begin to see that, they are taking measure to trap and kill these squirrels in the park, which have given rise to protest from wildlife advocates.

Many have e-mailed, saying that euthanizing the squirrels is the wrong response.

One viewer wrote, "I come to the parks to watch the wild animals, not the humans. I will no longer visit your parks knowing that any of them have become a killing ground for natural wildlife."

Wildlife advocates also oppose the unusual measure of killing the animals and said it won't solve the problem.

"The squirrels will be back," South Bay wildlife rehabilitator Norma Campbell said. "For every one you take out, two more will come in. It could be a never-ending project that isn't going to accomplish anything."

Officials said the increasingly brazen behavior stems from years of being fed by park visitors.

Now whether or not this is a good idea, wiping out all squirrels in the area, will remain to be seen.

But I do agree there is a danger to public health, unfortunately it was caused by humans feeding and getting the squirrels used to being fed. Cutting off food supplies exacerbated the problem. Now the answer to the problem humans caused, is to wipe out the squirrels....

I find this disturbing for the mindset at least, that for problems that humans cause, that our answer to it is kill off what humans caused to be the problem.

Muela said the city couldn't afford to wait and see if the squirrels' aggressive behavior goes away eventually, because of the threat posed to public health and safety.

Emphasizing his concern for the welfare of park visitors, Muela said, "We will need the public's cooperation on this, because as long as they continue to feed the squirrels it will exacerbate the problem."

Although the squirrels' behavior has led some to fear the animals might be rabid, Muela said that is highly unlikely because incidents of rabid tree squirrels are extremely rare.

Cyrus Nowrasteh: My sin was ACCURATELY portraying the Clinton record on terrorism.This complete and over-stepping of congressional authority by a major party has not even garnered interest. The fact that a political party threatened and tried to squash the free speech and censor when the majority if not 99 percent of those that were blasting ABC did not have any viewing of the movie at all yet, but it was enough to cause them to threaten ABC - something I would consider an abuse of power.

Can you imagine the uproar if the Bush administration tried to do something like this or the Republicans. It would be the next campaign platform against Republicans or the Bush Administration. But for the Democrats to do so, well it just seemingly disappears from the radar and we should just casually forget about it....move along, nothing to see here.

And the reeling from the audacity and corruptive stench that comes out of the UN and wondering why we put up with a body of governments that so despise us, yet we pay so they can continue their charade of "neurality" and "good-will".

Why we didn't have someone forceably pick him up by the shirt collar and seat of his pants and hurl him bodily back into his plane, I don't know. Yes, not the "Sane" thing to do, I suppose, but I am beginning to think sanity and common sense seems to be in the minority at the UN, in our Government, and in the Press.

God Help Us.

But in true UN fashion, this is the UN response to idiocy of Chavez's comments:

His remarks drew applause from many of the delegates.

Why are we a part of a body that so hates everything we are and do, but are the first to call on us for aide and military help?

There does seem to be a bright light, that Americans seem to rally enough to see this dictator for what he is, take umbrage at him insulting our President.

Even the Democrats "get it" as they speak in outrage at his remarks to the UN. Whether they are true outrage or not, I have hope....

Nancy Pelosi (D):

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'...

Actor Donnie Wahlberg gives an interesting take on the tizzy being thrown by certain individuals:

TVGuide.com: What do you think of the brouhaha that's going on now? You had to know that this project could be a hot potato.

Wahlberg: I didn't think it was a hot potato. I think there's a stink being made because certain people aren't happy with the way they're being portrayed, but the reality is that in most cases, the producers took a gentle hand with this stuff. The writers and the producers and the director tried to use as much integrity as possible.

I am not much for Wikipedia as a source, BUT in this case after reading several defintions on Docu-drama, of which "Path to 9/11" is, I think this fit very well:

A docudrama or docu-drama is a type of work (usually a film or television show) that combines elements of documentary and drama, to some extent showing real events and to some extent using actors performing set pieces to take dramatic liberty with events.

So in a Docudrama as this is being stated it is, and dramatic liberties are being taken to some degree to make the scene, while it may not be true to the fullest extent of 100 percent, it does sound like it fits exactly with how it is being billed.

This is also not the first time that it was reported that Clinton had passed on previous chances to nab Bin Laden.

In the middle of all the controversy surrounding ABC’s upcoming docudrama “The Path to 9/11,” something very important has been lost: Regardless of the protestations of the left, there were indeed some missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before our nation was attacked. In fact, on March 16, 2004, the NBC “Nightly News” did a report on one such chance the Clinton administration passed on.

Meanwhile, thinly vieled threats from the Democrats at revoking ABC license and to ABC's editting of "possible" errors, this is what is said:

Former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whose depictions are at the center of the controversy, asked Thomas Kean, the Republican ex-governor of New Jersey who led the commission looking into the attacks, to use his influence with filmmakers to pull it.

"You can't fix it," Berger said on CNN. "You gotta yank it."

The film's executive producer, Marc Platt, responded that many of the film's most vocal critics haven't yet seen it.

TS at Seixon (hat tip: Allah) has helpfully crafted a TV slate for ABC to "insert into every scene the champions of free speech nutroots or poor Bill Clinton objects [to] (because, from the looks of this massive jihad they are waging , it appears ABC will be using this slate quite a bit):"

For the most part I can understand from Former President Clinton's view of things, this will severely "stain" his Legacy. It was all about Clinton during his Presidency, and now it seems all that is about to become another controversy surrounding his administration, especially when Democrats want to hang what happened during 9/11 on President Bush.

We have worked hard to make this not a political movie. We show both administrations with an unvarnished truth. Because our show is chronological - if a viewer watches just the first night of the mini series it could be perceived as anti Clinton. If a viewer watches just the second night it could be perceived as anti Bush. It sounds as if you are getting your information from someone who has only seen one night.

D. Cunningham, Director of The Path to 9/11

Clarification

1) This is not a documentary. It is a movie told in two parts with 247 different actors led by Harvey Keitel playing FBI Counterterrorism agent John O’Neil.

2) This is not a right wing agenda movie. The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush.

3) Yes – we do show the PDB report in night two and many other missteps by the Bush administration.

-D. Cunningham (director of The Path to 9/11)

Even Further Clarification

It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors.

The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.

The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.

Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.

-David Cunningham

I think it should be released and let the public decide.

If Clinton and the Democrats want to sue ABC afterwards then that is their choice, BUT in doing so there should be investigations on what they seem to dispute. After all, I am sure they wish to make sure the world really knows the truth right? So they should have no problem if there was any kind of investigation to prove what they say is either right or wrong.....

There has been multiple cries of defamation from people like Berger, Albright and Clinton. For a bit of clrrification on public figures and defamation, see below:

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea

While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

Friday, September 01, 2006

The Media - Fast and Loose with the Facts

It's funny, all the stories that the media seems to exaggerate, especially when it comes to either A) Race or B) President Bush.

But when it finally comes down to getting to the truth of the matter, you normally find things are rarely what the media exaggerated it to be.....

Examples of this can be found in:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Reynolds[ABC]: “Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct?”

Marshall: “Yes, I did.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “What did you think of what the President told you tonight?”

Marshall: “Well, I think -- I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day.”

Marshall: “Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”

Marshall: “No, I didn't.”

Reynold[ABC]s: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President?”

Frederick Gould: “Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?”

Did New Orleans blacks die at a higher rate than whites in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? On the evidence so far, the answer is no. Of the 1,100 bodies recovered in Louisiana after Katrina, 836 were found in New Orleans, and the state has released data on 568 of those that were judged to be storm-related. As of last week, blacks, which were 67.2 percent of the pre-storm population of New Orleans, account for 50.9 percent of the city victims so far identified by race. It was New Orleans Caucasians who died way out of proportion to their numbers-28 percent of the population, 45.6 percent of the city’s known Katrina deaths by race.

This is far from the impression that the media have managed to leave, both during the crisis and in the months since. It’s possible, though unlikely, that these percentages may change in the final figures. Louisiana is not releasing any information on the rest of the dead until they are identified and their families notified.

In the chaos of Katrina, the press was hardly in a position to know that whites were dying as fast as blacks. But it was responsible for strumming the racial theme so relentlessly in the absence of actual information. A mix of factors were operating-faces shown on TV were mostly black, quotable black spokesmen kept insisting that racism was at work, and national reporters on the scene may have thought that since this was the south, blacks were probably being victimized in some way. This hardened into a narrative line for New Orleans that stressed race, and to lesser extent, class.

Racial agitators and entertainers played a big role. Randall Robinson, the former head of TransAfrica said, "This is what we have come to. This defining watershed moment in America's racial history." Jesse Jackson said, "Today I saw 5,000 African-Americans desperate, perishing, dehydrated, babies dying." (That would be 5,000 blacks dying out of a total of 1,349 known dead of all races in all Gulf States combined.) The morning show host of a New York City rap station saw the New Orleans situation as "genocide." Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics, said Katrina "disclosed our racism in multiple ways." Comedian and activist Dick Gregory saw an anti-black conspiracy in New Orleans. And rapper Kanye West offered the opinion that "America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well off, as slow as possible," adding his soon to be famous accusation, "George Bush doesn’t care about black people." The media carried all the race chatter without much in the way or caution or evidence.

Even now, mainstream media have done little to set the record straight. The numbers and percentages of death by race are easy to find among bloggers, very hard to find in mainstream reporting. On December 18, three days after the state of Louisiana delivered a breakdown of deaths by race, The New York Times ran a long analysis of Katrina that omitted the racial breakdown from the state report. By contrast, the Los Angeles Times ran an excellent article, also on December 18, that began this way: "The bodies of New Orleans residents killed by Hurricane Katrina were almost as likely to be recovered from middle-class neighborhoods as from the city’s poorer districts, such as the Lower 9th Ward." The paper reported that its own analysis "contradicts what swiftly became conventional wisdom in the days after the storm hit--that it was the city’s poorest African American residents who bore the brunt of the hurricane." Good journalism. Will the rest of the media catch on?

Fast on assumptions, fast on race baiting, fast on calling racism.....slow on corrections, slow if ever admitting they were WRONG!

Or when they become propaganda outlets for terrorist and terror supporting regimes so they can again put the President in a bad light, and his support for Israel.

The recent discovery that the Reuters news agency released a digitally manipulated photograph as an authentic image of the bombing in Beirut has drawn attention to the important topic of bias in the media. But lost in the frenzy over one particular image is an even more devastating fact: that over the last week Reuters has been caught red-handed in an astonishing variety of journalistic frauds in the photo coverage of the war in Lebanon.

This page serves as an overview of the various types of hoaxes, lies and other deceptions perpetrated by Reuters in recent days, since the details of the scandal are getting overwhelmed by a torrent of shallow mainstream media coverage that can easily confuse or mislead the viewer. Almost all of the investigative work has been done by cutting-edge blogs, but the proliferation of exposes might overwhelm the casual Web-surfer, who might be getting the various related scandals mixed up.

Or the hoax of the Lebanese Red Cross ambulance struck by a Israeli missile:

How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War.

On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

This includes Gas Prices, in which I believe the media help to keep the price of gas up so high by their constant conjecture and reporting of gas prices soaring to increasingly new heights, kept the prices up.

This was from a 2005 report:

Filling up at the pump is costing less and less each day – 45 cents per gallon less since its post Rita peak of $2.94. Despite that huge drop, all three broadcast networks have reported on rising or high gas prices four times as often as falling prices. Here are some of the key results:

ABC the Worst: ABC mentioned falling gas prices only once out of 11 reports and that was only after three straight weeks of price declines.

Dropping Prices Have Little Impact: Gas prices dropped every business day from October 6 through October 30, but the three networks still mentioned rising or high prices 79 percent of the time.

October was a month for scares and the broadcast news shows did their part. Even though gas prices fell 45 cents in a little more than three weeks, the media continued to talk about "record-high" or "soaring" prices.

Gas prices dropped every day for 17 straight business days, but the media covered rising or high prices roughly four times as often as falling prices.

That's what economic wiseguy Matt Lauer suggested to viewers of the August 30 "Today" show, even though oil analysts predict falling gas prices this fall and his own network erroneously predicted $3.50-a-gallon gasoline just a few weeks ago.

"You're probably feeling a little better these days when you fill up your car at the gas station," Lauer admitted as he teased a story by correspondent Kevin Tibbles. The "Today" host conceded that "analysts say prices could keep falling for months to come," but sought to shoot it down by pointing to the pessimistic projections of an auto executive.

....

What's more, while [Matt] Lauer dismissed the predictions of lower gas prices this fall, the August 30 USA Today devoted a front-page article to emphasize the potential decline.

"The only place they have to go is down," gasoline analyst Fred Rozell told reporter James Healey, adding, "We'll be closer to $2 than $3 come Thanksgiving."

CBS News veteran Harry Smith finally confessed something that the Business & Media Institute (BMI) have reported for a while and his colleagues elsewhere in the media have already picked up on: gas prices are on a downward trend.

"It seems like a month ago we were all screaming with our hair on fire about the price of gas going over $3, no end in sight. And now it looks like it's dropping like a stone," CBS's Harry Smith marveled on the August 31 edition of "The Early Show."

Media plays a big part in guiding public opinion through how it reports the news, or what it decides to omit or outright fake in news reports.

Public opinion sways leadership, since Senators and Congressman are always up for re-election, they get pressure from constituents that don't get all the facts, since the media does not report all the facts, and these same Senators and Congressman go out and publically denounce or vote incorrectly based on public pressures.

This is my opinion on how I believe things have happened, whether it is competely true on how these Congressman and Senators vote, I don't know. But I do imagine that public pressures hold quite a bit of sway with how they vote or when they get in front of a camera.

And I believe those public pressures come from the public that do not get all the facts from the media because of bad reporting, made up facts, fake pictures, or only partial reporting of the facts. Perhaps if the media was to report completely on a subject and not just a portion of what they believe people want to hear about, we would have a more informed Congress and Public.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Israel's Contributions

So many seem to think of Israel as some evil zionist state, especially if they decide to sit there and listen to the media, and the nutjobs like Iran's president.

What alot of people do not realize is that Israel has contributed more than most realize.

Browse through or take a direct interest and look through each, visit the links provided and see more.

New Israeli treatment improves blood flow. Israeli doctors performed the first operation of its kind, injecting genes which stimulated the growth of new blood vessels into a cardiac patient, said a spokesman for Rabin Medical Center in Tel Aviv. This experiment marks a major breakthrough in the field of genetics and catheterization.

Mutant Protein Holds Promise For Cell Growth Control. A unique technique for neutralizing the action of the leptin protein in humans and animals – thereby providing a means for controlling and better understanding of leptin function, including its role in unwanted cell growth -- has been developed by researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Leptin was discovered ten years ago and has attracted attention first because of its involvement in control of appetite and later by its effect on growth, puberty, digestion and immunological processes. Leptin can also have negative consequences, such as, for example, enhancing the spread of tumorous growths.

Israelis invent hydrogen car that uses just a tank of water. Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, have devised a scheme that gets round the problem of dangerous and expensive hydrogen infrastructure, and makes possible 100% green cars that emit only water from their tailpipe. By reacting water with the element boron, their system produces hydrogen that can be burnt in an internal combustion engine or fed to a fuel cell to generate electricity. The only by-product is boron oxide, which can be removed from the car, turned back into boron, and used again. What's more, they plan to do this in a solar-powered plant that is completely emission-free.

Israeli invention gives paralyzed a chance to walk. An Israeli-developed and manufactured wireless, computer-controlled device that enables safe walking for people with a foot paralyzed due to stroke, brain injury, cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis has received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.

Visit the link provided, because there is so very much more than just this: Link

The Middle East has been growing date palms for centuries. The average tree is about 18-20 feet tall and yields about 38 pounds of dates a year. Israeli trees are now yielding 400 pounds/year and are short enough to be harvested from the ground or a short ladder.

Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel. Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed and produced in Israel.

The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

Israel has the fourth largest air force in the world (after the U. S, Russia and China). In addition to a large variety of other aircraft, Israel's air force has an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16's. This is the largest fleet of F-16 aircraft outside of the U. S.

According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U. S. officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined. Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people -- as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the U. S. (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world -- apart from the Silicon Valley, U. S.

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the U. S.

Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech startups.

Twenty-four per cent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees -- ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 per cent hold advanced degrees. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the MiddleEast.

In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia, to safety in Israel.

When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.

When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day -- and saved three victims from the rubble.

Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship -- and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.

Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.

Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."

Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.

Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.

An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.

Israel's Givun Imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.

Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U. S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions.

Israel places first in this category as well. A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct -- all without damaging surrounding skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert.

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth.

Israel is constantly accused of misconduct and even ‘barbarian’ and ‘racist’ behaviour towards its Palestinian neighbours, especially at the United Nations where a disproportionate amount of time and energy of the world body is taken up on passing resolutions against Israel.

Here are the facts:

Israel was responsible for the welfare of the Palestinians during these years, 1967 – 1994, until the Palestinian Authority took over. During that period, Israel has presented annually dramatic documented achievements to the World Health Organisation (WHO) either by myself, as head of the Israeli delegation, or by the other Israeli officials of the Ministry of Health. This included the total eradication in the Palestinian population of poliomyelitis, neonatal-tetanus and measles. Also, Israel dramatically reduced the death rate of Palestinian newborns from over 60/1000 to 19/1000 within those 27 years of Israel’s presence.

These achievements and others were accomplished by the directives of Israel’s Health Authority in planning, training and implementation of modern medicine. This included the introduction of new immunisation protocols (in coordination with UNICEF) as well as new technologies and new medicines.

These programmes were performed either on site at Palestinian facilities, or in Israel’s hospitals and medical schools, where doctors, nurses, midwives, medical technicians etc were trained. These achievements resulted from the willingness of the local Palestinian population to be helped (almost free of charge) by Israel’s public health care system, and by the collaborative nature of Palestinian medical teams.

Israel’s Ministry of Health’s most dramatic and challenging training projects for the Palestinian physicians was to keep secret the specialisation programmes in anaesthesiology, open heart and brain surgery, conducted in Israeli hospitals.

No other nation on earth has ever voluntarily decided to show such a humane and forthcoming attitude towards people which could be characterised as ‘enemy’. Would the United States train Al-Qaeda physicians or Russia train such professionals of the ‘Chechnyan freedom fighters’ on their own people?

Moreover, after successful completion of training, fully equipped Intensive Care, Open-Heart and Neuro-Surgery Units were opened for the first time in the Palestinian hospitals for the benefit of the Palestinians. Furthermore, the Israeli medical tutors continued to guide the newly established units, and if needed were available continuously to assist them on site.

Since 1994, in spite of directives issued by the Palestinian Authority to stop the collaborative programmes with Israel and in spite of the ongoing hostilities, informal cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian medical teams continues, though of a lesser magnitude. Palestinian patients are referred daily to Israeli hospitals especially in the fields of oncology, organ transplantation and acute severe complications of trauma and pregnancy (11,000 were treated last year). Similarly, several training programmes are continuing in spite of difficulties.

Israel unequivocally demonstrates to the world that it sanctifies life and not death – the lives of Palestinian children, adults and elderly, including those of wounded terrorists, are treated in Israeli hospitals with the same care and alongside Israeli patients. This approach is deeply rooted in our Jewish tradition that “whoever saves one life (and not necessarily the life of a Jew) has saved the whole world”.

Ahmed Tibi, the outspoken Israeli-Arab Knesset Member, recently requested that his wounded Palestinian niece be transferred from a Palestinian hospital to an Israeli one. Tibi, who often accuses Israel of being ‘racist’, knew that his niece would receive the best medical treatment regardless of being a Palestinian, and indeed a full and speedy recovery resulted.

Why is it then, that this unprecedented, outreaching and caring behaviour of Israel remains unknown and unreported to the general public, although documented and presented at official bodies of the international community?

Is it that ‘good news is no news’ or is there a ‘hidden’ agenda of double standards and hypocrisy towards Israel (as addressed in Alan Dershowitz’s book A Case for Israel)? Or are we the people that the world loves to hate? There is a big and unanswered WHY that needs to be addressed.

Buy Israeli products and services.With the Israeli economy suffering, go out of your way to support Israel's export trade. www.shopinisrael.com, www.usaisrael.org, www.israeliwishes.com, and www.israeliproducts.com allow you to buy Israeli products directly. www.shorashim.net is an online tourist gift shop. When in the grocery store, look for brands like Elite, Telma, Osem, and Ahava beauty products -- even if you have to pay a few more dollars for Israeli products. Ask the supermarket manager to order these items specifically. Buy Israeli wine to bring as a gift when you visit friends. Home Depot and other stores have many made in Israel products -- especially plastics. www.israelexport.org lists the names of products sold in the USA.

Get the facts.The Internet is a great resource for getting an accurate picture of what is really happening in the conflict. For daily news, visit the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com) and IMRA (http://www.imra.org.il). For crucial background information, read "Israel: A History" (by Martin Gilbert), "From Time Immemorial" (by Joan Peters), and "Myths and Facts" (by Mitchell G. Bard) -- online at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html.

Pray.Pray to God to bring peace to the land. Pray for Israel's leaders who need wisdom. Pray that they continue to do what is best for Israel in spite of international pressure. Pray for the safety of Israeli civilians who are targeted by suicide bombers. Pray for the protection of IDF soldiers as they root out every last terrorist. Ask God to heal Israel's wounded soldiers and civilians and to thwart future terrorist attacks. And pray for the Arabs to realize the true nature of their leadership and doctrines that teach hate and murder. Regardless of your level of observance, you can add a request for Israel to your regular (or even irregular) prayer regimen. No prayer goes to waste. You can send prayers via the Western Wall at www.thewall.org. Cry out for God's compassion -- because the gates of tears are never closed. And remember: God is in ultimate control. He has done miracles before and will do them again.

Protest bias in the media.The media has a powerful influence on public opinion and government policy. When you discover a piece of bias, immediately contact the news agency and complain. Keep your remarks respectful and stick to the facts. Build a list of e-mail addresses of friends and colleagues, so when you discover bias, you can alert others to also file a complaint. There is power in the number of responses, even if your specific letter is not printed. You can join a media watch email list at www.HonestReporting.com which gives guidelines for how to be effective in contacting the media, and has over 25,000 subscribers protesting biased news against Israel.

Know your enemy.The Arab world tends to say one thing in English, but a very different message in Arabic. Blood libels and fabrications of Israeli-sponsored massacres are common. Memri (www.memri.org) provides important translations of the Arabic media. And the Center for Monitoring Impact Peace tracks Palestinian compliance with peace agreements (www.edume.org).

These are just a few of the suggestions.

How many that criticize, demean, castigate Israel actually know much history of Israel?

Read the above links. Read the responses to the accusations leveled at Israel, on why the Left hates Israel, and all the various achievements and the numerous ways they have both helped humanity but also advanced it.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Nagin equates NYC Twin Towers collapse to a pot hole?

Confronted by accusations that he’s taking too long to clean up his city after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin defended himself by remarking on New York City’s failure to rebuild Ground Zero.

On a tour of the decimated Ninth Ward, Nagin tells Pitts the city has removed most of the debris from public property and it’s mainly private land that’s still affected – areas that can’t be cleaned without the owners' permission. But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. "That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair."

Equating it to nothing more than a "hole in the ground".What, you think it is a pothole Nagin?

But before any rebuilding can take place, the clean-up and restoration of the city’s infrastructure must be complete and it will be Mayor Nagin, recently re-elected, who leads the efforts.

"Should things have happened quicker? Yes. But everyone has their own style of leadership, and right now our political leader, our political father is Ray Nagin," says Oliver Thomas, New Orleans City Council president.

"So for the next four years, we’re going to sink or swim with him," Thomas tells Pitts.